This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies of Toronto Star content for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, or inquire about permissions/licensing, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com

What you need to know about the U.S. Congress GMO food labelling fight

The Senate is moving ahead on bipartisan legislation that would for the first time require food packages to carry labels listing genetically modified ingredients.

The Senate is set to begin voting Wednesday on the legislation, which would require any foods that include genetically modified organisms to carry a text label, a symbol or an electronic label accessed by smartphone. (Damian Dovarganes / Associated Press)

By Mary Clare JalonickThe Associated Press

Tues., July 5, 2016

WASHINGTON—It’s a food fight in Congress over genetically modified foods.

The Senate is moving ahead on bipartisan legislation that would for the first time require food packages to carry labels listing genetically modified ingredients. Vermont’s senators — Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy — argue that the measure falls short, especially compared to the tougher labelling in their state that kicked in last Friday.

They argue that the federal government shouldn’t run roughshod over a state’s rules, pre-empting Vermont’s law, and the federal requirements wouldn’t be consumer-friendly.

The legislation would require any foods that include genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, to carry a text label, a symbol or an electronic label accessed by smartphone.

Both advocates for labelling and the food industry, which has fought mandatory labelling, have wanted to find a national solution to avoid a state-by-state patchwork of GMO labelling laws. The food industry supports the Senate deal, but many of the advocates do not.

Even if the Senate passes the compromise, it will still have to get through the House. That chamber voted to make labelling voluntary last year, a measure that went nowhere in the Senate.

A look at the GMO labelling bill, and what it means for consumers:

What’s a GMO?

Genetically modified foods are plants or animals that have had genes copied from other plants or animals inserted into their DNA. While farmers have been selectively breeding plants for centuries, this manipulation is done in a lab, speeding up the process by transferring a gene from one plant or animal to another. The engineering is done to create certain traits, like resistance to herbicides.

The bulk of the nation’s genetically engineered crops are corn and soybeans that are eaten by livestock or made into popular processed food ingredients like corn starch, soybean oil or high fructose corn syrup. Only a handful of genetically engineered fruits and vegetables are available in the produce aisle — Hawaiian papaya, some zucchini and squash and a small percentage of the sweet corn we eat, for example.

The FDA has approved for consumption a genetically engineered salmon that would grow faster than traditional salmon, but it’s not yet available in grocery stores.

The food industry says about 75 per cent to 80 per cent of foods contain genetically modified ingredients — most of those corn and soy-based. The Food and Drug Administration says they are safe to eat.

Senate deal vs. Vermont law

The Senate deal is more lenient than Vermont’s law, allowing food makers the three options for labelling. Vermont’s law would require items with genetically modified ingredients to be labelled “produced with genetic engineering.”

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., and the panel’s top Democrat, Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, brokered the compromise after the House bill was blocked in the Senate.

The Agriculture Department would have two years to write the rules. The legislation encompasses some foods that were exempted from the Vermont law, but it also allows USDA to determine how much of a “bioengineered substance” must be present to determine the food should be labelled GMO. Labelling advocates say many foods wouldn’t be labelled if the department sets a high threshold.

The same advocates have frowned on digital labels, saying they discriminate against people who don’t have smartphones, computers or the know-how to use them.

“It is not the business of Congress to overstep what the states have done,” Vermont’s Sanders says.

Why label?

While there is little scientific concern about the safety of those GMOs on the market, advocates for labelling argue that not enough is known about their risks and people want to know what’s in their food. Among supporters of labelling are many organic companies that are barred by law from using modified ingredients in their foods.

The food industry says GMOs are safe and the labels could mislead people into thinking they aren’t. But several companies have already started to use the labels anyway, and the industry’s main lobbying group, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, said it is backing the senators’ deal. While opposing Vermont’s law, the group had advocated for electronic labels in negotiations.

“This is the common sense solution for consumers, farmers and businesses,” said Pamela Bailey, the group’s president and CEO.

Delivered dailyThe Morning Headlines Newsletter

The Toronto Star and thestar.com, each property of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited, One Yonge Street, 4th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5E 1E6. You can unsubscribe at any time. Please contact us or see our privacy policy for more information.

More from the Toronto Star & Partners

LOADING

Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or distribution of this content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited and/or its licensors. To order copies of Toronto Star articles, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com